interplay between cencorship and acting out alone
Posted 31 May 2003 at 16:22 UTC by sye
My account on kuro5hin has no right to submit stories since i misunderstood the design of that site in the past, i suppose. it doesn't bother me too much. i consider myself a critics instead of an original author. No posting right freed me from my obligation to entertain ideas there. Now and then i popped in k5 to read people's diaries, commenting things if i feel strong about it, rate others' comments, exercise my voting right for subjects i care enough to vote for or against or abstain. It appears to me that Democracy on K5 is taking another turn when rusty believes he is the only one that can save it from being abused since he created this 'technology and culture from the trenches' in the first place.
But my concern is really for Rusty alone as an individual. Once he acquired this habit of exercising the power, how can the benefit of democracy ever applied to him? rusty has posted 8557 comments, 209 stories and 293 diaries. That is the outflow of energy he devoted to K5 site, including "yesterday i wiped out comment ratings from four users: veldmon, Tex Bigballs, The Turd Report and roam... What happened is that there were four or five users who have made it their mission to rate up bad comments, no matter what." I personally owe roam credit of rating up quite a few of my comments when they discord general perception. Taking away comment ratings from radical users will effectively turn trenches into rose gardens. There is nothing wrong fabricating digital rose gardens if it is the only thing market can handle and will buy under the pressure of sustainable consumer interest. Luckily, democracy in the real world is much tougher. Rusty's acting out alone of censoring his own site prompted this criticism. A lot of users here are kuro5hin readers as well. That, in turn, generates interest back to examine the phenoma of black roses and how to deal with all sorts of social cloaks. In a way, rusty's individual censorship has a right to co-exist with institutional censorships. Against the background of institutional censorship, individual censorship is, as a matter of fact, the individual freedom of expression.
Good thing, too., posted 2 Jun 2003 at 01:09 UTC by srn »
If this is as good as they get, I think everyone would be better off if you were "cencored".
He killed roam as i know him. When i have doubts about myself, i normally look into a mirror . This is a case about killing a 'person' so others won't get offended by his talking or thinking.
, don't let others' ratings drop your spirit although i doubt you can find some place else 'where folks' are a bit more mature except, maybe, in your grand parents' house if they'd let you set up your own virgule engine. As a matter of fact, i can probably sponsor a person who want to manage his own virgule very bad and had at least 10 compatriots who wish to participate in his branch of governance...
*plonk*, posted 2 Jun 2003 at 21:01 UTC by raph »
This post is waaay off topic. I really need to do something about the way the front page works.
...if this has finally been the last straw that finally gets
the advogato article system fixed. I like
Stevey's proposal, since the topic is in the air.
censorship from elders are interpreted as natural law for thousand years in China and youngsters haven't complained too much about it when they turn certain age themselves. It is scary how world ever managed to operate in this degree of chaos. It is truly a miracle that wasn't called for...
Re: *plonk*, posted 3 Jun 2003 at 14:14 UTC by Denny »
Democracy ??, posted 4 Jun 2003 at 21:39 UTC by Malx »
Hmm.. seams to me that democracy is not popular in Internet. :)
Just try to recall any site or service wich is actually use this style of management. There is none at all.
You have freedom to choose between different autocracies. It is so. But you can't persuade someone to change _his_ web server just becouse you think that is wrong.
So ... it is all for good. It is same everywhere - even here (see post of raph about start page - it is his dicision, not democratic one :)
duh, posted 5 Jun 2003 at 01:11 UTC by djm »
, welcome to the desert of the real.
Apologies in advance for a politically-leaning rant, but I am sick of hearing people defend "freedom of speech" and "democracy" on websites, as if these were axioms of human existence and not principles that are specific to government and law.
There is good reason that democracy is not popular on the internet - it is horribly inefficient at getting anything done. The reason that democracy has merit in a governmental system is that it provides a mechanism through which public officials may be held accountable for their actions. There are problems with democracy as well - in a perfect democracy, mob rule, and in a less-than-perfect democracy, manufactured consent. Sometimes democracy fails to hold a leader accountable for their lies, for example, about the existence of weapons of mass destruction :-).
Democracy's inefficiency is one of its chief merits in a system of government. As one wise man put it - "Doing stuff is overrated. Like Hitler, he did a lot, but don't we all wish he would have stayed home and gotten stoned?" Government's main purpose when it "does stuff" is to kill people and take their money. Sometimes it kills bad people, and sometimes it gives the money that it takes away to people who deserve it. On balance, though, you don't want it to get super-efficient at what it does, otherwise it will be less careful to make sure it's doing the right things.
On the internet, there are numerous more efficient ways besides voting that we may hold site administrators accountable for their actions. We can choose not to frequent their sites. We can post opposing information on our own sites that portrays a different point of view.
When website admins "do stuff" it is typically to improve (or perhaps degrade, depending on your point of view) the quality of the service they are providing to their users. This is far less contentious than killing and stealing. Typically it's a good thing to improve the efficiency with which they may make such changes, even if they screw it up. The reward/risk ratio is much higher for allowing that flexibility.
Most of all, we have no reason to fear website administrators, because they do not have armies and police at their command. There is a pretty wide categorical rift between HTML design and legislation.
Uh..., posted 6 Jun 2003 at 04:13 UTC by leviramsey »
What does this have to do with anything to do with Free Software?
i think the point that susan is making is that whilst advogato has a very good system of moderation which has been applied in a very "laissez-faire" manner due to the relatively infrequent posting rate, kuro5hin has a very abuseable moderation system which is unfortunately applied in accordance with the personal views of the moderators (not necessarily in the interests of the readers) because, i presume, kuro5hin has a higher readership.
both systems are beginning to creak - for different reasons.
basically, susan is pointing out what is, in _her_ opinion, rusty's journalistic / editorial excesses, and i infer that this is intending to spark a debate about how to deal with getting "quality news" on open source issues.
whilst it has only been inferred, and is yet more navel contemplation (we need more navels!), it is a valid issue to discuss on advogato.
if that gets some extra rules into both advogato _and_ kuro5hin, then GREAT!
p.s., raph, i'm happy to do the "draft" status stuff, see http://linux.edu for an example which has both "draft/final" status and also "Certification" on articles (by readers) before they will appear on front page, except of course i'd do it in c not XML.